<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Were the States Sovereign Nations?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2008/08/16/were-the-states-sovereign-nations/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2008/08/16/were-the-states-sovereign-nations/</link>
	<description>Concordia res Parvae Crescunt</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 19:07:32 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Lloy</title>
		<link>http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2008/08/16/were-the-states-sovereign-nations/comment-page-1/#comment-254077</link>
		<dc:creator>Lloy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Mar 2009 02:52:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=144#comment-254077</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[So long as the central, national or federal government confined itself to the powers and authorities expressedly delegated to it in the constitution, none of the dangers you assert in your argument as proving the absence of the intent of the ratifiers of the constitution to create a national government can occur.  As I outlined and briefly argued in my other post, your arguments for state sovereignty are as mis-placed as these and for the same reason:  the individuals residing within the states are sovereign - the self-sufficient source of political authority - not the state.  Those individuals, acting together, created the government of their respective states, but could not create an entity self-possessed of legitimate authority and power.  Only humans are such entities.  Other than producing children, nothing we can do is capable of creating a sovereign entity, in the meaning of the third definition in my other post; that is to say, create a self-sufficient source of political authority.

It is, most certainly, a convenience of speech to refer to &quot;the government&quot;, or &quot;the state&quot; rather than to list the people who exercise the power given to &quot;the state&quot;.  
But you suffer from a fundamental fallacy - forgive me if I seem rude; it is not my intention - that fallacy which holds that governments and political &quot;entities&quot; are somehow real as are humans.  These political entities are legal fictions - just as are corporations and any others of the same ilk - conveniences of speech, figures of expression, but are never expressions denoting real, actual, genuine beings or entities.  There is nothing there, contained within the set of objects denoted by the word &quot;government&quot; or by the word &quot;state&quot; or by any of those figures of speech we use to label those individuals who exercise governmental powers.  Nothing, that is, apart from those individuals who have been elected or appointed in accordance with the constitutions and laws duly enacted according to those constitutions which charter our governments.  From that fallacy flows and arises a whole host of misconceptions and misperceptions regarding government and the people and the proper relationship between and among the people who exercise the governmental authority and the (different group of) people upon whom that authority is exercised.  It is - if you will forgive me a bit of hyperbole - the root-stock of tyranny to believe in the existence of such creatures as &quot;the government&quot; or &quot;the nation&quot; or &quot;the state&quot;, as being separate and apart from the people, the human beings, who live there, by which term I intend to include those who exercise the governmental powers and authorities as well as their objects; namely, the rest of us.  Why?  Because such misperception disguises the true nature of the actions of those who exercise the governmental powers and makes discerning tyranny difficult and pointing it out nearly impossible, as one person&#039;s &quot;government&quot; is another&#039;s tyrant.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So long as the central, national or federal government confined itself to the powers and authorities expressedly delegated to it in the constitution, none of the dangers you assert in your argument as proving the absence of the intent of the ratifiers of the constitution to create a national government can occur.  As I outlined and briefly argued in my other post, your arguments for state sovereignty are as mis-placed as these and for the same reason:  the individuals residing within the states are sovereign &#8211; the self-sufficient source of political authority &#8211; not the state.  Those individuals, acting together, created the government of their respective states, but could not create an entity self-possessed of legitimate authority and power.  Only humans are such entities.  Other than producing children, nothing we can do is capable of creating a sovereign entity, in the meaning of the third definition in my other post; that is to say, create a self-sufficient source of political authority.</p>
<p>It is, most certainly, a convenience of speech to refer to &#8220;the government&#8221;, or &#8220;the state&#8221; rather than to list the people who exercise the power given to &#8220;the state&#8221;.<br />
But you suffer from a fundamental fallacy &#8211; forgive me if I seem rude; it is not my intention &#8211; that fallacy which holds that governments and political &#8220;entities&#8221; are somehow real as are humans.  These political entities are legal fictions &#8211; just as are corporations and any others of the same ilk &#8211; conveniences of speech, figures of expression, but are never expressions denoting real, actual, genuine beings or entities.  There is nothing there, contained within the set of objects denoted by the word &#8220;government&#8221; or by the word &#8220;state&#8221; or by any of those figures of speech we use to label those individuals who exercise governmental powers.  Nothing, that is, apart from those individuals who have been elected or appointed in accordance with the constitutions and laws duly enacted according to those constitutions which charter our governments.  From that fallacy flows and arises a whole host of misconceptions and misperceptions regarding government and the people and the proper relationship between and among the people who exercise the governmental authority and the (different group of) people upon whom that authority is exercised.  It is &#8211; if you will forgive me a bit of hyperbole &#8211; the root-stock of tyranny to believe in the existence of such creatures as &#8220;the government&#8221; or &#8220;the nation&#8221; or &#8220;the state&#8221;, as being separate and apart from the people, the human beings, who live there, by which term I intend to include those who exercise the governmental powers and authorities as well as their objects; namely, the rest of us.  Why?  Because such misperception disguises the true nature of the actions of those who exercise the governmental powers and makes discerning tyranny difficult and pointing it out nearly impossible, as one person&#8217;s &#8220;government&#8221; is another&#8217;s tyrant.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
